Thursday, 31 January 2013

One should consider the 30 Year HDB Concessionary Loan as a form of a death-trap

31st January 2013

[This letter has also been sent to TODAY]
I refer to HDB quality not compromised despite increase in supply
In the report, you mentioned, “The review noted that public housing remains affordable for Singaporeans. The Debt Servicing Ratio for first-timers buying new flats in non-mature estates inched up to 24 per cent last year, from 22 per cent in 2010, but it is “well within the international benchmark of 30 per cent to 35 per cent for affordable expenditure on housing”.

The ratio measures the proportion of the monthly household income set aside for housing instalments and is calculated based on a 30-year HDB concessionary loan, factoring in the various grants.”

However, one should note that Debt Servicing Ratio should not be the only factor when it comes to affordable public housing. One should consider the 30 Year HDB Concessionary Loan as a form of a death-trap.

Many couples are marrying later at 33 years old due to the high cost of living in Singapore. Couples are also borrowing higher loans due to the high cost of a HDB flat.

Many fail to consider that with a 30 Year loan, they may actually be in debt when their CPF withdrawal limits affect their ability to pay back their mortgage loan.

Most of the time, HDB officers and property agents compute buyers’ credit assessment based on their monthly income only without factoring in their age. However, many of them do not factor in CPF withdrawal limits and fail to inform buyers of this loophole.

With a 30 year old loan, most flat owners still need to service their loans until 60 years old. However, with CPF Act, it said that “If your housing loan is still outstanding when your total CPF usage for the flat has reached the Valuation Limit (VL) and you are below the age of 55, you may continue to use the excess in your CPF Ordinary Account savings to repay the housing loan after setting aside half of the prevailing Minimum Sum.”

How many citizens can actually meet the Minimum Sum at age 55?
Moreover, there is a change in the contribution rates at age 55. A person at age 55 would start contributing less CPF due to the CPF Act.

Even if you are gainfully employed at that age, most of your CPF contributions are channeled to Medisave and Medisave cannot even be used for housing purposes.

Edmund Lim
article can be found at TRE website

Confusion over population target continues: 4, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 6.9 million?

31st January 2013

In October last year, this website published an article about the lack of clarity of the Government over the target population size of Singapore. The announcement this week that PAP intends to raise this to 6.9 million has only added to the confusion. 


In 1991, under former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, the Government published its blueprint for Singapore called The Next Lap in which it stated that a 4-million population was a comfortable figure. 

In 2007, former minister for national development Mah Bow Tan changed the figure to to 6.5 million: "A recent review of our long-term land use and transportation plan concluded that we have enough land to cater to a population of 6.5 million." (The post seems to have been removed. Reference: Mah Bow Tan: Why we need 6.5 million people, PAP website, March/April 2007, 

Mr Mah was then contradicted by then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who said in February 2008: "I have not quite been sold on the idea that we should have 6.5 million. I think there's an optimum size for the land that we have, to preserve the open spaces and the sense of comfort." He projected, instead, an optimum population size of 5 to 5.5 million for Singapore. 

In April 2011 (just before the general elections), 
Mr Mah walked back his own statement, saying that the 6.5 million number is not a "target" but rather a "planning assumption." Why would the Government be planning to house 6.5 million people if it did not target that number? 

A little over a year later in
 September 2012, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong changed the number: "Today our population is over 5 million. In the future, 6 million or so should not be a problem." 

Today, Mr Lee gives us yet another figure: 6.9 million. 

The Government's former chief statistician, Dr Paul Cheung, states a different figure: 8 million. 

4 million, 5 million, 5.5 million, 6.5 million. 6.9 million, 8 million - who comes up with such numbers and how are they arrived at?   

The constant changing of the target does not inspire confidence, at best, and, at worst, demonstrates total confusion within the cabinet. PM Lee even admitted that his administration lacked the foresight in population planning. 

In 2008, former foreign minister George Yeo had given us a glimpse into how unprepared the PAP was when he said that the Government needed to come up with a "masterplan" to give "some idea of how many foreigners we can accommodate in a sustainable, organic way.” The statement came after Mr Mah announced in 2007 that his ministry had done a review and found that we could house 6.5 million people.

This confusion doesn't bode well for our future. Has the PAP thought through how such a huge population increase will affect the infrastructure? How will the influx of massive numbers of foreigners affect the social cohesion and overall livability of this island? With half of our population made up of non-Singaporeans, how will our national security be impacted?     

These questions must be answered before we commit to a 6.9 million population and, in the process, do this nation harm, perhaps irreparably.

Read also: 6.5 million, Part I (published on 6 Sept 2010)

article from SDP website


Employment pass numbers down: Really?

31st January 2013

I refer to the article “Employment Pass numbers down for first time since 2003” (Straits Times, Jan 31).

Less employment pass?
It states that “The number of high-skilled foreigners on Employment Passes (EP) has fallen for the first time since 2003. There were 173,800 EP holders in December 2012, down from 175,400 a year before.
“This is likely in part due to the tighter EP framework from Jan 2012,” Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin wrote in a post on the ministry’s blog on Thursday. These stricter requirements included better educational qualifications and higher qualifying salaries.

More S-Pass?
Meanwhile, the number of S-Passes – meant for mid-skilled workers – went up to 142,400 from 113,900 previously.
Mr Tan noted that “some are workers who were downgraded from EP to S pass”, but said the rise in S-Pass numbers is nonetheless “cause for concern” and that the Government is reviewing the S-Pass framework.”

Total employment passes increase?
So, the total number of employment passes actually increased by nine per cent from 289,300 to 316,200.
How can a one per cent drop in employment passes and a 25 per cent increase in S-Passes be said to be a first-time ever drop in employment passes since 2003?

Employment pass become PRs?
Since there are about 30,000 new PRs now in a year, and about 259,000 PRs were granted over the last five years or so, some of the employment pass holders may simply have become PRs.

Consistency in statistics?
The problem with the statistics on employment passes, PRs, long-term visit passes, work permits, etc, may be that sometimes they tell you the number granted in a year, sometimes they tell you the increase or decrease of the total number in a year, sometimes they tell you the average number in a year over a period of years, etc, such that at the end of the day, it may be rather difficult to try to figure out what exactly is happening.
Perhaps someone can ask for greater consistency in the way statistics are given, especially in Parliamentary replies.

article by Leong Sze Hian

Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow and an author of 4 books. He is frequently quoted in the media. He has also been invited to speak more than 100 times in 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications. 

Yet another year of negative real wage increase?

31st January 2013

I refer to the article “Foreign workforce growth slows significantly, local hiring rises sharply” (Channel NewsAsia, Jan 31).

Real median income growth?
It states that “The median monthly income from work, including employer CPF contributions, of full-time employed citizens rose over the year by 5.8 per cent to S$3,248 in 2012, down from the growth of 6.3 per cent in 2011.
Balanced by lower inflation, the real median income growth was 1.2 per cent in 2012, compared with 1 per cent in 2011.”

Negative real income growth – minus 2%
However according to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) Labour Force in Singapore2012, the median gross monthly income (excluding employer CPF) of full-time employed residents only increased from $2.925 in 2011 to $3,000 in 2012. This means that the real income growth was minus 2 per cent.
So, we have yet another year of negative real income growth, as it was negative in 2008, 2009, 2011 and was only 0.5 per cent in 2010.
I think we may need to seriously examine our policies as to why we don’t seem to be able to be get out of this persistent trap of “negative real wage growth”?

Almost 0% real income growth last decade?
Since the “the real income growth (including employer CPF) at the 20th percentile over the decade was flat, and that for the median was only 1.3 per cent per annum, how much lower was the real income growth excluding employer CPF?

Foreign employment growth 19% higher than locals?
As to “Local employment growth rose by 59,200, substantially higher than the gains of 37,900 in 2011.
The growth in foreign employment eased to 70,400 in 2012, compared with 84,800 in 2011″, the growth in foreign employment is still 19 per cent more than locals.

Breakdown jobs to citizens & PRs?
Also, since the number of new permanent residents (PRs) and new citizens is now at about 30,000 and 20,000 respectively a year, and considering that the population white paper projects 30,000 PRs and up to 25,000 new citizens a year going forward, we need the breakdown of the jobs growth for locals into Singaporeans and PRs.
If we can give the breakdown of the unemployed into Singaporeans and PRs, why can’t we do the same for employment growth?
With regard to “the decline in unemployment was also seen among residents from 2.8 per cent to 2.6 per cent, and among citizens from 3 per cent to 2.9 per cent”, does it mean that most of the unemployed are citizens relative to PRs?

Increase in discouraged workers?
“Some 9,600 or 0.5% of the resident labour force (inclusive of discouraged workers) were discouraged from seeking work in 2012, up from 8,600 or 0.4% in 2011.”
“The proportion of unemployed residents who had been looking for work for at least 25 weeks edged up from 19% in June 2011 to 20% in June 2012. The share of resident job seekers with unemployment duration of 15 to 24 weeks also rose from 13% to 14%.”

Older workers unemployed longer?
“Once out of work, mature residents tend to experience longer unemployment spells.  The median duration of unemployment was 12 weeks for resident job seekers aged 50 & over and 11 weeks for those in their 40s, compared with 4 weeks for youths aged 15 to 24 and 6 weeks for those aged 25 to 29.”

Inactive mostly 60 & over?
“Around four in ten (38%) economically inactive residents in June 2012 were aged 60 & over, while another three in ten (32%) were youths aged 15 to 24.  The proportion of those aged 60 & over (39%) and youths (46%) among economically inactive males was even higher, as the vast majority of prime-working age men participated in the labour market reflecting their traditional role as the main breadwinner within the household.”

More intend to work, but … ?
“Some 161,300 or 15.2% of economically inactive residents in 2012 intended to look for a job within the next two years, up from 153,600 or 14.4% in 2011.”

Degree holders highest incidence of intending to work?
Degree holders had the highest incidence at 36.7 per cent of resident potential entrants into the work force.

79,000 unemployed?
“The non-seasonally adjusted resident unemployment rate and number decreased over the year from 3.9% or 81,200 to 3.7% or 79,000.”

Service & Sales workers highest unemployment and vacancies?
Service and Sales workers continue to have the highest unemployment rate at 5.6 per cent, despite also having the highest vacancies rate.

Foreigners job growth much higher than locals?
The growth rate of non-residents in the total labour force from 2011 to 2012 was 7.4 per cent, which is still much higher than that for residents at 1.9 per cent.

Lower PMET jobs growth?
“Resident non-PMET employment increased by 2.7% in 2012, faster than the growth of 1.5% for PMETs.  Consequently, the PMET share of resident employment dipped from 52.2% in 2011 to 51.9% in 2012″, This may be significantly different from the annualised change from 2007 to 2012, which was 3.9 per cent for PMETs and 1.2 per cent for non-PMETs. – Does this mean that most of the jobs created now were non-PMET jobs, compared to the past?

Older get lower-pay jobs?
In respect of “Residents employed in lower-skilled jobs tended to be older, reflecting their weaker educational profile relative to those younger.  Six in ten (61%) residents working as production & transport operators, cleaners & labourers in 2012 were aged 50 & over, compared with around three in ten (32%) among clerical, sales & service workers and two in ten (22%) for PMETs.    The proportion of older workers was  the  highest among cleaners, labourers & related workers, where close to seven in ten (68%) employed residents were aged 50 & over.    As a result, the median age of residents in this occupational group was 55 years, much higher than 42 years in the entire resident workforce” – Does  this mean that there may be age discrimination in wages, particularly against lower-income workers?
The above may also be reinforced by “Nearly half of the employed residents in administrative & support services (49%), accommodation & food services (46%) and transportation & storage (44%) in 2012 were aged 50 & over, reflecting the higher  reliance  of non-PMETs in these industries”.  - Does this indicate that most elderly workers end up in lower-income jobs in the lower-income sectors?

Older harder to stay in job?
“The proportion of resident employees who had been in their current job for at least a decade generally rose with age, reaching a high of 47% for those in their 50s before falling to 41% for those aged 60 & over.” – Does this mean that older workers may be finding it harder to keep their jobs?

Multiple job holders increase?
“Only a small minority or 2.2% (43,200) of employed residents held two or more jobs in 2012, though this increased from 1.8% in 2010 and 1.4% in 2002.14  Multiple job-holding was more prevalent among employed residents in their 40s (2.6%) and 50s (2.7%).” – Does this mean that more people had to take on multiple jobs in order to make ends meet?

Contract workers increase?
“The pool of contract workers increased slightly, amid more cautious business sentiments.  192,200 or 11.5% of resident employees were on term contracts in 2012, up slightly from 188,400 or 11.4% in 2011.”

3 in 10 worked more than 48 hours a week?
“Of every ten employed residents in 2012, six  had usual weekly hours ranging from 35 to 48 hours.  Another three typically  worked  long hours exceeding 48 hours a week, while the remaining one or 9.8%  usually  worked less than 35 hours a week.2.24.”

Older workers worked longer hours?
“Workers in their 40s and 50s were more likely to work long hours.  Around one in three (34% and 32% respectively) usually clocked more than 48 hours per week. Their average (mean) usual hours worked for full-timers at 48.8 and 49.4 hours respectively were also higher than the norm of 48.2 hours per week.”

Degree holders and below-secondary worked longer hours?
Proportionately more residents at the two ends of the education spectrum namely degree holders (33%) and residents with below-secondary qualifications (32%) had usual hours exceeding 48 hours a week than those in the other education groups.  In terms of average (mean) usual hours for full-timers, the below-secondary educated residents worked the longest at 50.4 hours per week while the degree holders had below-average hours worked at 47.5 hours per week.”

Less went for training?
“The average (mean) duration of training was shorter at 14 days per trainee in 2012 compared with 16 days in 2011. Consequently, the training intensity, derived by multiplying the average (mean) training days per trainee with the training participation rate, declined from 4.3 to 4.0 training days per adult in 2012.”

Less training for unemployed?
“The training participation rate declined for the small pool of unemployed from 16% to 14%.  Coupled with the decline in their average training duration, the training intensity for the unemployed fell from 9.1 days per adult in 2011 to 3.9 days per adult in 2012.”

Few had pay rise after training?
“A smaller proportion of trainees indicated that training helped in their career advancement.  Close to three in ten felt that  the  training gave them more job satisfaction (29%) and additional/new job responsibilities (27%).  Considering that the impact of training on pay and promotion may not be immediate, only 13% reported receiving a pay rise and 8.7% a promotion that was related to the training that they undertook in the year.”

article from Leong Sze Hian

Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow and an author of 4 books. He is frequently quoted in the media. He has also been invited to speak more than 100 times in 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications. 

PAP, you don't need rocket science to solve population issues

31st January 2013


Populate or Pro-Create?

So the cat is finally out of the bag. All the talk, National Conversation, feedback, studies etc have resulted in what can be described as Singapore's worst kept secret - we are gonna have 7 million people by 2030 if all goes to plan.

Wait isn't it 6.9 million, not 7 million? It seems the Govt knows a bit about marketing gimmicks after all. Let's put it simply, if you're gonna sell a bag for $7, would it be better to sell if at $6.90 instead? After all what's 10cts when you have 7 dollars? 

So let's just cut to chase and say it's 7 million, like calling a flood a flood not ponding. But I did say it wasn't much of a secret. Actually if you trawl back to the early days of this population growth, 1 comparison stands out - ourselves and Hong Kong. You see Hong Kong has around 6 million people or more, and although it's size is larger than Singapore, it's livable space is only around 2/3 of Singapore. So back when the Govt had planned to up the population to the 5 million today, it was looking at Hong Kong. If I am not mistaken the plan was already there to have 6 million around 2015.

Now it appears it has been pushed back to 2020 and add another million by 2030. The most logical argument being that we are gonna be an aging society, and there is a need to have a workforce in place, and someone to look after us in our old age.

The ways to that simply put, is to give out a lot of perks for Singaporeans to have more babies, to bring in more foreign labour and grant citizenships and PRs. Whilst I am all for pro-creation, we must look at foreign labour and the issue of citizenship and PRs more closely. Foreign labour should never be an issue, you only hire what you want or need, usually young, fit and capable people. When they reach their expiry date, you ask them to leave and replenish them with equal replacements to fit into the industries that you need.

The key is to focus on which industries to have them or needs them, and which to ensure a higher local workforce. Even in industries that need them, you should always give more perks and benefits to those that hire local born labour. Let's face it we are not the poorest country in the world nor the richest, but we have enough to survive and maintain certain standards. (The PAP can trumpet this as a major achievement, I will gladly concede this)

Just look at some Gulf states, Australia and New Zealand. Yes they are bigger and have more land, but look at how stringent they are about foreign labour, how selective and how much benefits they give the local populace. My friend told me that in the UAE, the Govt gives local born Arabs a fair chunk of the profits from the oil industry or state wealth, but on condition they marry fellow local born Arabs, or remain single. The moment you marry a foreigner, these benefits are cut. For foreigners who aren't citizens, you gotta be happy with the high wages you earn and leave when the time is up. In many Gulf states, the local populace is lower than the total of foreigners working in the country, yet there is never an issue about population over-flow or the presence of foreigners in the country. The foreigners are hired to perform a job, nothing more.

Of course we aren't as rich as the Arab states, but we are far richer than many other Asian countries that we procure foreign labour from. Even the professionals from developed countries we hire come here because of the benefits, you think a German, Frenchman, Englishman or what have you, would leave their homelands to work here at equal pay or jobs that they can get back home?

There is no need to pander totally to the foreign workforce with all sorts of enticements, chief of which is to allow them buy public housing, bring their whole entourage here (families) give them citizenship and put them on the same queue as locals, or even higher up priority wise. Only for many of them, to sell these on at a higher profit, close shop and return to their homelands, in a far better state than the locals. Of course we want them to to return better off, but not at our expense.

You have to house them yes, you have to give them some benefits, but you must also tax them and ensure they only enjoy these benefits when they remain here for the purpose they are hired for. You don't build housing, improve the infrastructure etc for them and leave the local populace to pick up the tab, after they've used it and left, or even they remain, spend money that benefits them more than locals.

That is the main beef many Singaporeans have. We aren't against having foreigners here, we just don't want so rapid or dramatic a shift, that it burdens us financially, emotionally and makes us feel 2nd class in our own country. We want clear limits and demarcation between Singaporean citizens and foreigners. We don't want even PRs to enjoy the same benefits. PRs should enjoy more than just the ordinary foreign worker here on permits and employment passes, but never be on the same par as citizens. Other countries do this all the time, why must we different?

The Govt here is very selective on what statistics it uses. When it comes to the Law, it always says we have to be different and do what what is right for Singapore. But when it comes to costs, it says we live in a global world, and have to accept what's happening elsewhere. This 'different and same' game is used for many policies, so why can't we be the same as other countries when immigration, labour and population matters come to the fore? Why must we different since 'we live in a global world and must evolve to meet the challenges' - a term expounded many times by Ministers?

Finally the issue of 'newly minted citizens'. Again this must fulfill 2 main criteria - a) they must have money to contribute to Singapore's economy and b) they will contribute, if not rich enough to invest to the development of the country. This contribution must involve skilled labour and a long term contribution to Singapore, not just a short term benefit, before they rip up their passport, collect all the benefits and leave. There must be penalties in place for those who choose this route - no profiteering of HDB flat sales, CPF contributions other than their own have to taxed or penalised heavily - leaving them with only what they put in plus the accrued interest and any other measures to discourage this.

For those new citizens who want to bring in their families, they cannot expect to have priority over long term citizens here especially those by virtue of birth. They have to endure the same issues Singaporeans face before their whole families can become citizens as well. If they can't or don't want, then PRs is all they should get, not citizenship.

To boost population among local born citizens, relaxation of rules for those marrying foreigners. If you're Singaporean by birth and choose to marry say a Thai woman, who isn't very well educated, but she's committed to you, bears you children and will settle down here for life, then these people should not be penalised. Citizenship rules for these kinds of people must less stringent than those who come here as foreigners and become citizens - that is to say to say you take an Indian from India, give him citizenship and allow him to bring his whole family over from India. They should never be ahead of the former group except in exceptional cases, where the foreigner's contribution to the country is so special or note-worthy, it makes sense to offer him citizenship at a faster rate.

All sorts of rules must be in place to encourage the local population to pro-create and be able to sustain a meaningful balance between work and family. Public housing must be in the form of a home for the future, not a debt for life. Even adoption rules for those able to afford it but can't seem to have kids can be relaxed after the necessary checks are done.

6 million is a figure that many of us will be able to stomach, but after that, it must be very very stringent and at a pace that does not make Singaporeans or those born here at a disadvantage. The best thing about being a citizen is to feel love for your country and feel appreciated for it as well. If being a citizen makes you feel 2nd class in your own country or the same as any foreigner who resides here with you, then there's something dreadfully wrong in the country.

You don't need a rocket scientist to solve population issues, you need common sense above all else.
 article by ANYHOW HANTAM

Tuesday, 29 January 2013

Population White Paper : Filled with flaws and unsubstantiated claims

29th January 2013

Even before the PAP solved the problems caused by the large influx of the last 15 years, it tells us that it wants to continue the large influx until 2030 to reach a population of 6.5-6.9M people. This proposal has shocked both netizens and citizens alike because the past decade of high foreign influx has led to numerous problems and a decline in the quality of life Singaporeans. Singapore now has the highest population density in the world and the PAP govt wants to increase this further by another 30%. The high foreign influx and especially cheap 3rd world labour has caused the income gap to widen, wages to be stagnant among lower income groups, cost of living to shoot up and transport/medical infrastructure to be strained.

Here is the white paper. You should read the white paper in full to understand the arguments but if you don't have time, as usual, I will summarize the main points:

The first section of the paper discusses the challenging demographics we face - that of an ageing workforce. If the current birth rate does not improve we will have an ageing population unless we allow for immigration. Most govts be it Russia, France, Sweden, Finland and S.Korea when confronted with the same problem of low fertility tackles it head on by removing the root causes of low fertility but the PAP proposes a solution that assumes that it will fail to get the fertility rate backup.

However, the evidence produced here is not correct. While it is true that the Singaporean workforce is ageing,  Singapore workforce today consists of both foreigners (40%) and Singaporeans(60%). These foreigners on work permits and employment passes are "refreshed" every few years provide a segment of the workforce is "forever young". So the combined profile of our entire workforce is not going to age substantially over time. Today we have the reverse of an ageing workforce problem that will get worse if the PAP embarks on this irresponsible measure of importing more foreign labor over time - the problem faced by Singaporeans is that of structural unemployment. There is underemployment or unemployment of our older workers (45 and above) because the PAP open the floodgates to supply the labor market with younger foreign workers many of our older workers have been retrenched and find it hard to get new jobs. They usually end up underemployed in positions that do not fully utilize their skills and experience.

The white paper also talks about the low fertility rate among Singaporeans. This I've explained in previous postings is fixed by importing babies today or adults into our workforce 20 years from now. You cannot import adults to make up for the shortfall in babies today. Even then in terms of numbers we are talking about a shortfall of 10-20 thousand babies a year but the white paper talks about expanding the population by about 100 thousand a year - 5 times the baby short fall from replacement level. What is the extra 80,000 people for? Other than force feeding the economy with people to keep it growing, it really does not make sense.

The last part of the white paper discusses the final numbers we will be looking at in 2030, a population consisting of 55% Singaporeans (this number includes the newly minted citizens during the 17 year period) and calls this a "strong core" of Singaporeans. It also discusses the benefits if the PAP govt goes along the proposed plan - increase job opportunities, good quality of life, and the chance to live in a vibrant economy. To tell this to Singaporeans who are already filled with anger and frustration resulting from the high foreign influx of the last decade that maintaining a high influx is good for them is an insult - we already know the consequences and outcomes of such a policy, throughout the last decade, the PAP has reiterated that a high foreign influx is here to create a better life for Singapore, but that is not what happened.   To try to fool us again shows the disingenuity of our leaders - not only have they failed to deliver, they are now proposing to go along a trajectory we know will not deliver a good quality of life for our people.

article from LuckyTan